Gary Petersen wrote:
I wonder though why some people seem cursed when it comes to this camera while thousands of others just buy it and it works fine.
Gary, I realize that you are a relative 'non-believer' being so new to a camera that appears to be behaving, but rest assured that there is a significant chance that someday yours, too, will hiccup and cause you to question its AF performance. I'm too well-versed on the camera's pros and cons, and yet it took me months to discover without question that this one (558x) behaves as oddly as many others, only less frequently than my old one (502x) did. I'm certain that 570x and every other number out there is no different, I simply don't know what combination of factors rear their ugly heads to produce the problems.
Hopefully you'll never witness any of these results with your camera, but I'm not holding my breath.
Jeff wrote:
Hey Antje, nice to hear from you after so long! I'm so glad I could be of service to someone, and I know how important it is to keep the better half happy. I only wish I'd heeded my better half before buying this thing.
As far as calibration goes, no, I haven't, as the lenses have worked properly on other bodies, and most of the time perform normally on the MkIII. It's the inconsistency factor that is impossible to nail down. Until this last weekend I was relatively happy with this second camera, but it finally provided me results that were inexplicable by any source other than an error somewhere in the system.
Just pulling your leg, Jeff - but I really think you should at least move to a lower altitude and send in your car for calibration, too... Yes, I'm well - far better than your camera, probably, but just as busy these days with a new job and lots of customers crying for my attention.
I've been following your adventures closely, even when I didn't post, and it always makes me cringe... It's just too expensive to show this behaviour. My little $20 Yashica GSN shows erratic behaviour, but that's many years old and doesn't know better. I too believe it's a systematic error somewhere deep in the innards of those MkIIIs.
Jeff wrote:
Gary, I realize that you are a relative 'non-believer' being so new to a camera that appears to be behaving, but rest assured that there is a significant chance that someday yours, too, will hiccup and cause you to question its AF performance. I'm too well-versed on the camera's pros and cons, and yet it took me months to discover without question that this one (558x) behaves as oddly as many others, only less frequently than my old one (502x) did. I'm certain that 570x and every other number out there is no different, I simply don't know what combination of factors rear their ugly heads to produce the problems.
Hopefully you'll never witness any of these results with your camera, but I'm not holding my breath.
I hope mine keeps working and that Canon figures out any that don't. I tested all three of the L's I bought along with it. Wide open to f16 or so. Bright desert sunshine and temps over 100F and on moving and still subjects. I finally gave up testing mine and am ready to just have fun and shoot. BTW it's a 577xxx S/N if that means anything.
This is the same I've seen from my 5D (very rare) and a past 20D (used for 1.5 years with no problems and then it started). Ironically, I never saw it with the D60. As a CPS member, I sent the 20D back to Irvine 6 (yes, six times)! Over and over we went with sample pics etc... still to no avail. They would just send it back (and lenses) every time and say that they could not duplicate my problems and everything was fine. I know they grew to despise me but I would not accept it's performance.
I am convinced that they WILL NOT really get to the bottom of these (focus) issues. They simply try to band aid the solution with calibrations. I know they see this frequently and know that only solution is a new camera or a repair that is too expensive to warranty.
Exactly the same results...some shots, nothing is in focus. Got to the point that I'd have to shoot multiple frames of each pose. Not a big deal except for weddings and more spontaneous shots. There is something inherently wrong with Canon's system. It doesn't happen with every camera but, it is not limited to certain models either.
I don't know if Nikon owners see the same phenomenon but, I never saw this with my past film cameras (nikon or canon). I've just come to realize that it's part of the reality that we have in digital now and live with it. Take more shots and pray for the best.
Please let me reiterate to all those who have never seen this...
1. You are lucky
2. You will someday
3. People that do see this are not idiots or camera rookies
4. It has nothing to do with lenses/settings/technique or calibrations.
5. It's like being diagnosed with a serious disease...you try to live with it. Canon will do nothing to fix it.
6. The only solution is to buy a new camera and hope that it doesn't happen.
PetKal wrote:
Now, why would the "AF algorithm" be "pixel dependent", and in what way would the algorithm be different for those two cameras ?
Theoretically, the more pixels the better, but there is a trade off between too many pixels or too few with regards to the responsiveness of the AF algorithm; i.e, AF algorithm used for 1D Mark III can't be used for 1Ds Mark III and vice versa.
p.9 #10 · This frickin' 1D MkIII just ain't right!
mdurisseau wrote:
I am most unhappy to report that this new body I got today is worse(!!!!!!!!!) than the old one! It's already packed, back in the box it came in, and is ready to go back. I already have a nasty-gram in to Canon...It's a yellow dot, 570xxx serial...
This is not cool...I even went by a friend's to test with some L lenses...same results...if anyone is interested, I will post links to today's stuff with the new body...
Do the following and report back here before you send it back.
Use tripod, if possible, and shoot stationary contrasty subject under good/perfect light with:
1. AI Servo AF at 10 and 8 fps, respectively.
2. AF at 10 and 8 fps, respectively.
3. Manual focus at 10 and 8 fps, respectively.
p.9 #11 · This frickin' 1D MkIII just ain't right!
For those who have asked to see images...here are four, shot with Canon L lenses, unedited, so all the EXIF info is there....If you have the Canon software, you can see the focus points, etc., as well. After an observation regarding the 50mm 1.2, I have a shot with a 70-200 2.8...first image.
I removed the links to the images...some complained. Write me if you want to see them.
Edited by mdurisseau on Jul 10, 2008 at 07:51 PM GMT
Edited by mdurisseau on Jul 11, 2008 at 10:18 AM GMT
p.9 #12 · This frickin' 1D MkIII just ain't right!
mdurisseau wrote:
For those who have asked to see images...here are four, shot with Canon L lenses, unedited, so all the EXIF info is there....If you have the Canon software, you can see the focus points, etc., as well.
p.9 #13 · This frickin' 1D MkIII just ain't right!
Sorry...as I said, they're unedited...and any change would not prove that it wasn't the lenses, but the camera. Too bad you weren't more constructive in your comment...
p.9 #15 · This frickin' 1D MkIII just ain't right!
It's nIf you're talking about the first image, that's entirely possible considering shutter speed...did you even look at the EXIF info? For that frame it was:
# Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) = 1/1250 second = 0.0008 second
# Lens F-Number/F-Stop = 63/10 = F6.3
# Exposure Program = normal program (2)
# ISO Speed Ratings = 400
What about the rest of the frame that is out of focus?!?!?!
p.9 #20 · This frickin' 1D MkIII just ain't right!
On the first image, the yellow concrete curb guard on the lower left corner and actually a few feet beyond that appears to be sharp and in focus. I hate to be pointing the obvious but is the AF switch on the on position and do you notice the AF motor activated when you push the AF button? You never know.... .
Yes, I'm well - far better than your camera, probably, but just as busy these days with a new job and lots of customers crying for my attention. 